At first it was surprising (because the rule is called “wh-phrase”) but now I am thinking: this is probably legit, given that the particle is probably there to indicate focus and probably also some dislocation?

Should I just leave the analysis like this (assuming nothing else is broken)?

Which filler-gap rule is applying? If it’s the wh one, then you probably don’t want this and the likely culprit is underspecified NON-LOCAL values on the focus particle. If it’s combining via head-comp, then it needs to take on the NON-LOCAL of its complement, I think.

It is the wh one, but why exactly do I not want this? Just because it is called “wh”? Or some other reason? Because there is probably some dislocation here, e.g. in the info structure library, focused constituents like this would be dislocated and ultimately joined by a filler-gap rule.

the likely culprit is underspecified NON-LOCAL values on the focus particle

The particle currently says it’s QUE.LIST has a top on it, which yeah, sounds very general (I took it from the 567 instructions and was actually wondering). What do you think should go on the list there?

ebender:

If it’s combining via head-comp

If what is combining via head-comp, the particle? It is head-adjunct currently, as per the 567 analysis.